Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Post-Screening(Riflex)  
User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3649 times:

Hello,

So I have sent this image which got rejected due to being grainy:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=p1350399687.9106img_6031.jpg

The first 2 rejections were mainly because it was soft, which I corrected by giving it some sharping(to the whole picture).
In my opinion I think it's exagerated because I don't see almost any grain. I would like to ask for some opinion(s) to see what can I do to improve the image  

Regards


Nuno Faria
181 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3646 times:

Quoting riflex (Thread starter):
So I have sent this image which got rejected due to being grainy:

There's a slight amount of noise in the shadows. Should be easy to fix. Noise often get introduced to an image when you sharpen it, so you shouldn't be totally surprised.


User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

Hello,

Thanks for your help! I'm aware that images can get noisy but in this particular case I didn't think it would get rejected because of grain.
So all I have to do is to select the shadows and remove some noise?

Regards



Nuno Faria
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

Quoting riflex (Reply 2):
So all I have to do is to select the shadows and remove some noise?

Yes, that should take care of the noise, but it does also still look a little soft to me.


User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

Hm...I'll give it a little more sharp then and fix the noise in the shadows. Thank you once again for your help!  


Nuno Faria
User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3607 times:

Dana, a quick question again about the noise removal:

I've used: Strenght 6, preserved 80% of the details, reduced 5% of color noise and sharpen details are at 25%. I'm note sure if I should be a bit more "harsh" in treating the photo...

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/v1351261411.6077img_60312.jpg



Nuno Faria
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

To be honest, I don't see much difference between this one and the rejected; on the other hand, the rejected doesn't need much adjustment, so just be sure you don't overdo it.

User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3598 times:

Right...I've corrected again, this time: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/t1351266654.7713img_60312.jpg
This time I diminished the details a bit more to 55%.



Nuno Faria
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3575 times:

Quoting riflex (Reply 7):
Right...I've corrected again

You've removed the previous version, so I can't really compare. The difference between this and the rejected seems also slight.


User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

Well...it's getting more challenging than I expected   how about this: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/e1351300300.565img_60312.jpg

The link doesn't appear since I'm uploading the pictures again deleting the previous one but I guess the best picture to compare is the first one that got rejected.



Nuno Faria
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

Quoting riflex (Reply 9):
how about this:

I don't see noise being an issue for that one.


User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

Allright then, I'll give it a go   let's see the results...thank you again for your help!


Nuno Faria
User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3500 times:

Hello again.

Got this one rejected because it was high in frame and high contrast:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=p1350920165.4716img_4808.jpg
The contrast I agree, the centered reason...it's sort of confusing. The aircraft body is in the middle, I even lowered a bit because of the tail but still wasn't enough.

I also wanted to ask for some opinion about these 3:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/k1351700696.5975img_4875.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/q1351702050.0869img_5867.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/s1351705080.9171img_5948.jpg

Regards



Nuno Faria
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting riflex (Reply 12):
Got this one rejected because it was high in frame

Looks a bit high to me.

http://imageshack.us/a/img841/2779/20121031p13509201654716.jpg

Quoting riflex (Reply 12):
I also wanted to ask for some opinion about these 3:

All soft/blurry to varying degrees, especially the second. The first might also not be fixable, as it looks like heat haze.


User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3493 times:

Ah, now I understand better the centering   thank you for showing me that. I'll fix it in no-time.

About the other 3 pictures, I'll eliminate the first 2. The 3rd one...it seems that the nose needs a bit of sharpening. Is there any other area I should fix?



Nuno Faria
User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3489 times:

Fixed version of the Air Italy, I had to give a bigger crop or the aircraft would be again high in frame:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/s1351708638.7947img_4808.jpg



Nuno Faria
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3479 times:

Quoting riflex (Reply 15):
Fixed version of the Air Italy

Centering looks fine, though the contrast is still harsh, and looking again it might need a bit of cw rotation.


User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3469 times:

Hello,

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/e1351813789.9148img_4808.jpg
Gave some CW rotation and took care of the harsh contrast.

I'd like to ask an opinion also about this one:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1351706511.4969img_7637.jpg
The first rejection was also because of too much contrast.

Regards



Nuno Faria
User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3446 times:

Hi,

Got this one rejected this time because the sky was noisy and not only the aircraft shadows:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=e1351300300.565img_60312.jpg

Is it worth appealing?



Nuno Faria
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

Quoting riflex (Reply 18):
Got this one rejected this time because the sky was noisy and not only the aircraft shadows:

I do see a bit in the sky, but it's not that bad.

Quoting riflex (Reply 17):
Gave some CW rotation and took care of the harsh contrast.

Definitely still needs cw rotation, and contrast still a bit harsh.

Quoting riflex (Reply 17):
The first rejection was also because of too much contrast.

Also still a bit dark/contrasty.


User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3434 times:

Hello,

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/g1352050399.0421img_4808.jpg
Used one of the buildings to try and line-up the horizont, still I'm not sure if it will work. I had to give a negative contrast.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1352050830.4247img_7637.jpg
Less contrast, more light!  

Thanks for your help so far Dana!

Regards

[Edited 2012-11-04 09:43:07]


Nuno Faria
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2934 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

Quoting riflex (Reply 20):
Used one of the buildings to try and line-up the horizont, still I'm not sure if it will work.

It still looks to need some CW rotation to me.

Quoting riflex (Reply 20):
Less contrast, more light!

but unlevel and needing some CW rotation.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Hi,

Thanks for your reply Darren!

Corrected the B737 again:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/o1352076785.8645img_4808.jpg

About the A340, I'm not sure because I lined the horizon according to the airport lamps, it was the best reference in the picture.

Fixed noisy sky, I think this time it's ok.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1352080410.9584img_6031.jpg

[Edited 2012-11-04 17:55:14]


Nuno Faria
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting riflex (Reply 22):
Corrected the B737 again:

Level still off, and looking flat & soft now.

Quoting riflex (Reply 22):
Fixed noisy sky, I think this time it's ok.

Should be ok.


User currently offlineriflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

Hello,


Gave more CW rotation but now I'm not sure if it's the right level...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/c1352128320.6431img_4808.jpg

There's an antenna close to the nose of the aircraft, should I use it to line-up the horizon?



Nuno Faria
25 dazbo5 : Are you sure you gave it CW rotation? It looks like you gave it CCW rotation to me. It needs to be rotated more to the right, not left. That, and the
26 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Using the antenna to line the horizon, the photo turns out like this: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/d1352131019.7769img_4808.jpg
27 dazbo5 : That looks much more like it level wise. Darren
28 Post contains images riflex : Allright! thanks for your help! I just hope it's not too soft.
29 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Would like to ask about this photo: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/p1352218106.7073img_8179.jpg Not sure about: sharp, nose soft,
30 dazbo5 : This doesn't have the quality for here. There's heat haze and it's quite soft towards the front. Darren
31 Post contains links and images riflex : I was afraid of that. Well...instead of that one, I'll try this: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/h1352223830.8523img_8132.jpg Thanks for
32 dlowwa : Quality is ok, but verging on being backlit.
33 Post contains images riflex : Hello Dana, I had that in attention, I chose the photo with most light possible(the reflection of the piano keys of the runway in this case). Let's se
34 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Would like to ask an opinion on this picture again: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=l1351709125.1321img_5948.jpg Got rejected due
35 dlowwa : Oversharpened? Can't see that. It's not dark so much as the contrast is a little harsh (which makes certain areas look darker). Try reducing the cont
36 Post contains links and images riflex : Hi Dana, http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/j1352560173.5157img_5948.jpg Done the corrections on the contrast and gave a bit of bright to th
37 dlowwa : Still seems a bit dark. Again, the 'dark' rejection comes from the poor light/contrast, not necessarily underexposure. No, sorry, quality looks quite
38 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Fixed the 757 with more bright, I just hope I didn't exagerated this time: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/m1352603763.2387img_594
39 dlowwa : Like I said above for both: it's not really the exposure that is the problem, it's the poor contrast. I think the first is more fixable, but you will
40 Post contains links and images riflex : Hello Dana, Well, instead of increasing the bright, I used the levels as you said: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/q1352682215.0774img_59
41 dlowwa : Contrast/exposure is better, though I can't really compare to the older versions as you seem to have removed them. This one is also starting to look
42 Post contains links and images riflex : Hi Dana, Made a few corrections to the 757, this time we can compare Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9001755...182570943/in/photostream/ligh
43 dlowwa : Should be ok now.
44 Post contains links and images riflex : Thanks for your help on the 757 Dana Would like to ask about this one, I'm still a rookie in night pictures: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...29
45 dlowwa : It's soft and noisy.
46 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9001755...192069994/in/photostream/lightbox/ Fixed version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...04
47 dlowwa : Don't see much difference. On second look, it could also be brightened a bit.
48 Post contains links riflex : Hello Dana, Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8192069994/lightbox/ (I forgot to save the picture that I fixed after this one) Fix
49 dlowwa : This one looks noisy and blurry/oversharpened. Don't think so, the quality looks quite poor.
50 Post contains images riflex : Well, I think I'll give way to other 2 pictures in that case. Thank for your help!
51 Post contains links riflex : Hello again, A quick question about this picture: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...2259largadanuno30marode2011320.jpg I had no other chance than
52 dlowwa : Looks pretty sloppy. It is ok to crop the tail, but generally only if it serves a purpose. Yours looks like it happened by accident.
53 Post contains links riflex : Hello, I'll try another picture then. I got this one rejected: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21120_b1352828649.5543img_5930.jpg I didn't rece
54 dlowwa : = Counter Clock Wise (rotation).
55 Post contains links and images riflex : Ah, allright thanks! Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1353465850.3892img_5930.jpg
56 dlowwa : Level looks ok.
57 Post contains links riflex : Hello, http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21123_z1353089536.6303img_8350.jpg http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21123_r1353091196.8829img_5912
58 DL747 : Um, I agree with the screeners. Both look leany to me. I think the second also has some quality issues. The first is pretty subjective, though. Anywa
59 dlowwa : No, they both do seem to need a little rotation, look at the vertical references.
60 Post contains links and images riflex : Hello, Thanks for your replies and I'm glad you like it DL747 Here's the fixed version of the MD-11: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/n135
61 dlowwa : You appear to have rotated it clockwise, not counter clockwise. First would be rejected for dark/soft/centered, and the second for grainy/soft/blurry
62 Post contains links riflex : My bad about the MD-11, here's the fix: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/y1353778229.8697img_8350.jpg Here's the helicopter one, more crop
63 dlowwa : Better, maybe even a little too much now. Yes, quite soft, almost blurry.
64 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8216467859/in/photostream Fixed version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/d1
65 dlowwa : Level should be ok. This also is dark, and really there is no need for a 3:2 ratio, a 4:3 crop would get rid of some of the empty space on the sides.
66 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Helicopter picture: Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8219674328/in/photostream Fixed version: http://www.airliners.net/ad
67 dlowwa : Soft, and not the best light.
68 Post contains links riflex : Hello, I'll try and fix the helicopter later. Wanted an opinion on these 2: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=v1353266540.0051img_3770.jpg
69 dlowwa : First is still marginal from the haze, but I don't see noise being a problem. First also still marginal soft/quality, again looks like from some heat
70 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Relative to the first image in the previous post, I decided to use another one which seems less afected by the heat haze: http://www.airliners.
71 DL747 : To me, the first still looks awfully heat hazy. The second also seems to be of lesser quality. I think the third is better now, although it could be a
72 dlowwa : Better, should be ok. Still borderline, but not worse. Tough light, aircraft in the back are still blown out. No, it is not.
73 Post contains images DL747 : Apologies, guys. For my opinion on the haze I was referring to the second. It could just be the jetwash, though.
74 dlowwa : How could jetwash be affecting the aircraft?? Are you implying there's another aircraft taking off directly in front of the EasyJet we can't see? I h
75 DL747 : No, not what I was saying. I think the grass in front of the aircraft towards the wing looks a bit hazy, but it could be that the jetwash is giving it
76 dlowwa : Sorry, that's even more confusing..you're saying the jetwash is somehow traveling in front of the aircraft? In any case, not much point in debating s
77 DL747 : Okay, once again, sorry for the confusion. I was saying behind the wing on the left looks hazy. In front was a brain lapse, I typed where I was lookin
78 Post contains links and images riflex : Hello, DL747, thank you for your compliment and for giving your opinion about the pictures don't worry, we're here to learn and since I've been in thi
79 DL747 : First looks too dark for me, anyway. Nice idea, though. Easyjet looks okay, but tough for my beginner eyes to tell. Third has a bit of a funny crop in
80 dlowwa : Highlights are still quite blown out. Still a bit soft, and some noise visible. Needs a little ccw rotation, but the quality softness is quite poor,
81 Post contains links riflex : Hello, About this one in the previous post: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...54225029.13811dejunhode2011017.jpg By bad crop you mean I can for e
82 dlowwa : The out of focus aircraft in the foreground is the problem. It's blocking the main subject. Without it, you would be fine.
83 Post contains links riflex : Hello, http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...54289142.82892dejunhode2011321.jpg I hope that the aircraft in the foreground isn't with too much exposu
84 dlowwa : Unfortunately, it is blown out. Yes, still soft. Also still soft. Looks like it was shot at a distance, as the haze is noticeable.
85 Post contains links riflex : Hello, I'll skip the first photo in the previous post and try another one later. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/m1354330065.7634img_8772
86 dlowwa : Blurry, noisy, and color. Probably not fixable because of the blur.
87 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Got this one rejected because of level, says it needs CCW but honestly I think the level is fine: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=
88 dlowwa : Yes, level looks ok.
89 Post contains links riflex : Hello, #1 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8242111625/in/photostream Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/t135457
90 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Would like to ask to ignore my post above, I exagerated in the number of pictures and I apologize for that. #1 http://www.airliners.net/procpho
91 dlowwa : A bit bright and soft, but probably fixable. Again, not too bad, but the contrast is a little harsh. May be fixable with better edit. This one is pro
92 Post contains links riflex : Hello, #1: Old version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0121205_d1354063035.44img_3774.jpg Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/
93 dlowwa : Too dark now, still soft. A little dark. A bit bright, but I would have said within reason.
94 Post contains links riflex : Hello, #1 Old version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0121205_d1354063035.44img_3774.jpg Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/l
95 dlowwa : Exposure is better for the first two; third is a bit dark and needs ccw rotation.
96 Post contains links riflex : Hello, #1 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8258722715/in/photostream/ Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/g13550
97 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Would like to ask an opinin about this pictures: #1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../ready/s1355705011.6376lppr084.jpg #2 http://www.air
98 dlowwa : Looks a bit dark/soft Link broken. Should be ok. Maybe a touch high, yes. Bit os/contrast, but maybe passable. Really poor light. A bit dark, but the
99 Post contains links riflex : Hello, What does os/contrast mean? #1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=l1355020223.7077img_8252.jpg Got rejected because of quality, grain
100 dlowwa : os = Over Sharpened contrast (should have been contrastY) = contrast too harsh Yes, looks like it. Better, but light is still marginal at best. Do yo
101 riflex : Yes, sorry I forgot to put the question about #3 It got rejected before because it was soft, I gave a bit more sharp, do you think it's ok? Regards
102 dlowwa : No, still quite soft.
103 Post contains links riflex : Hello, #1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=l1355082481.7239img_3774.jpg It got rejected for being soft but I think I've posted this pictur
104 dlowwa : No, exposure looks passable. Looks a touch dark, but I don't think soft.
105 Post contains links riflex : Hello, #1 Old version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21217_g1355099772.8232img_7815.jpg Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/i
106 dlowwa : Still a bit noisy/soft/dark Should be ok.
107 Post contains links riflex : Dana, in the #1 picture ( http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/i1356049335.0062img_7815.jpg ) you mean the noise is more visible in the aircra
108 dlowwa : Yes, but not too bad. Looks partially backlit, so not much difference.
109 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Got a few rejections that I would like to ask for an opinion, the last 2 pictures I had already posted here in the thread asking for advices: #
110 dlowwa : Color borderline, but agree it's still quite soft. Don't see it as dark, but noisy and soft I can see. This one looks ok.
111 Post contains links and images riflex : Hello, Thanks for the help in there Dana, Would like to ask for an opinion on these: # 1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/k1356983210.4612
112 dlowwa : A bit soft & dark, but should be workable. The ZB might have a bit of heat haze too, so that one might be a bit trickier.
113 Post contains links riflex : Hello, I'll skip the Monarch picture. #1 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8342470090/ Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/
114 dlowwa : They look better. Dark/harsh contrast and maybe a little bit of blur.
115 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Thanks for the help once again Dana. Would like to ask about this ones #1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/c1357229714.2187img_7532
116 dlowwa : First two not that great, but the third might have a chance with a little less contrast and a touch of cw rotation.
117 Post contains links riflex : Hello, I'll skip the first 2 then 1# Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8345210897/in/photostream Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/
118 dlowwa : Better. Color and light would be a problem for me as well, and the tail is a bit soft. Don't see noise as being an issue. A bit soft/dark.
119 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Do you think this photo is soft and overexposed? http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=h1356626889.9745lppr162.jpg Regards
120 dlowwa : Soft, yes; overexposed, no.
121 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Thanks, I'll correct the picture for softness then. Would like to ask: #1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...n?filename=v1356905059.3929057
122 dlowwa : Level is fine.
123 Post contains links riflex : Thank you. I Decided to appeal that picture. http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...n?filename=n1356908113.2403031.jpg This one was rejected due do so
124 dlowwa : Yes, just a little soft.
125 Post contains links riflex : Hello, #1 Old version: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...n?filename=n1356908113.2403031.jpg Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/q
126 dlowwa : First two still a bit soft; third borderline, but maybe passable.
127 Post contains links riflex : Hello, #1 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8372126466/in/photostream Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/n135795
128 dlowwa : Don't see a big difference. Yes, a bit soft.
129 Post contains links riflex : Hello, I got 2 rejections by reasons that I don't agree much: #1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=j1357311008.751img_5518.jpg This one be
130 DL747 : 1. Looks very over-exposed towards the nose and a bit oversharpened. 2. Not too far off, but could be a bit less brighter in the rear. 3. Kind of hard
131 dlowwa : Think exposure should be passable, but can see a bit of oversharpening on the first (and the second for that matter). Not sure you'll be able to make
132 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Thank you for both answers. I'll skip the first two and post in the next reply. Would like to ask for an opinion on those: #1 http://www.airlin
133 dlowwa : Level is fine, but a bit dark/noisy. Very harsh light, and yes soft/blurry. Likely not fixable. Needs ccw rotation. Quality borderline as well.
134 DL747 : I was just about to give feedback for the pics, but Dana beat me to it. Anyway, on number 3, the nsoe gear area looks very blurry. I'm not sure what t
135 Post contains links riflex : Hello, I agree with you DL, the nose gear does look a bit blurry, not a good day for photography :P #1 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017
136 dlowwa : All will be borderline at best, with maybe the first having the best chance.
137 Post contains links riflex : I'll give it a shot, thanks! Uploaded 2 more: #1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/t1358271383.1975img_8994.jpg Do you think it's sort of b
138 dlowwa : Pretty poor light one both (especially the second); if they were mine I'd pass. Don't see the first as blurry, though again, quality overall isn't th
139 riflex : You'd pass, you mean you would not upload them? I'll try and give it a fix to see if It's possible to improve.
140 dlowwa : That is correct.
141 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Well...I'll give it a shot anyway, if not I'll skip them. Got this one rejected, it was 50/50 as you said: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/
142 DL747 : Yes, it is fairly grainy in the sky, and in the shadows/belly of the aircraft. It isn't that bad, but it is there, and with this site's hyper-sensitiv
143 dlowwa : It is, and coupled with the fact it's a fairly common frame the result shouldn't be too surprising.
144 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Well...I'll just skip that one then. I'll fix it later. Would like to ask about this one: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...30121_f1357956
145 dlowwa : Yes, light is really poor. Think I said as much before.
146 Post contains links riflex : Hello, http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=u1358344993.7096img_9101.jpg I posted here early this shot, not very good quality but still gave i
147 DL747 : Yes it is a bit dark in the under belly. The crop is a bit odd looking for me, but I can't comment on why it was rejected for being this way. Also not
148 riflex : I was sort of expecting a rejection by dark or so, but the crop one I wasn't expecting. Well it does look sort of odd without the stabilizer but I tho
149 dlowwa : Motive should not have been a rejection reason.
150 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Thank you once again Dana. I would like to ask an opinion about those: #1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1359251793.2332img_1815
151 DL747 : 1. Looks soft in the nose and maybe a bit dark. 2. Maybe soft and a tad overexpsoed, but I am not sure. I also see a bit of vingetting. 3. Soft, dark
152 dlowwa : Noisy, soft, and poorly (harshly) lit. Noisy and strong vignetting. Noisy and harsh light.
153 Post contains images riflex : Hello, About #2, I didn't noticed the vignetting at all. The only way to fix it would be to give it more bright and try to crop a bit more? But I thin
154 dlowwa : You can fix vignetting with software, but it often leaves pretty bad halos or banding. Better to stop down your lens a little more next time to avoid
155 Post contains links riflex : Allright, thank you! I'll try again that picture or another. I never had problem with vignetting, was it due to the darkness plus the strong sunlight?
156 dlowwa : No, it's usually caused by shooting with an open aperture. Likely a dark/soft rejection. No, soft, contrast, quality (heat haze) would all be issues.
157 Post contains links and images riflex : Thanks for the explanation Dana. I'll have that in mind in the future Fixed the photo of the nose shot: Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9001
158 dlowwa : Locked. Noisy and quality issues (soft in places, oversharpened in others). Not sure it will be fixable. 'Nose' category does not apply.
159 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Thanks for the help Dana. Got a few rejections that wanted to ask if you agree, all rejected due to softness...I honestly sometimes can't say i
160 dlowwa : Tail looks soft on the first two; third one looks ok.
161 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Thank you Dana. I'll correct the first two then, I've appealed the last one. I want to ask for an opinion on this 2 rejections: #1 http://www.a
162 dlowwa : Level looks ok. Looks like it needs a touch of ccw, but it's also heat-hazed, so might not be fixable.
163 Post contains links and images riflex : Hello, The #2 photo I was also afraid of the heat-haze, I think I'll let it pass. Got this one rejected for being oversharped: http://www.airliners.ne
164 Cargolex : It's a combination. Soft in the low-contrast (darker, in this case) areas but too sharp in the high contrast areas (the brighter parts, in this case)
165 riflex : Thanks for the answer Cargolex! I see what you mean, the jaggies are most noticeable indeed in the winglets and tail. I'll try and fix the shadow part
166 Cargolex : The haze isn't as apparent as on the Star Alliance TAP, so it might be fixable, but getting those shadowy areas sharp is going to be hard as you might
167 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Sorry for the very late answer. Thanks for your help Cargolex, I'll give it a shot later to the Star Alliance. Got a few rejections that I want
168 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Regarding the previous reply to the one I'm making, I've corrected photo #2: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/n1361130209.1696img_4
169 dlowwa : It's quite soft.
170 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Sorry for not having answered earlier Dana, thanks for your help. I have 3 rejections that I wanted to ask if you agree: #1 http://www.airliner
171 dlowwa : Looks like maybe a touch of heat haze. No, aircraft has noticeable noise visible. A touch soft/dark, and also dirty.
172 Post contains links riflex : Hello, I'll skype those for now then, thanks! Wanted to ask if those 3 have any chances: #1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/w1362594789.0
173 dlowwa : Unfortunately there are issues with level, contrast, and overall light for all of them. I would skip these as well, sorry.
174 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Got a few rejections that I wanted to ask if you agree: #1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=q1364144623.2285img_8913.jpg Rejection
175 mjgbtv : Hi, #1 - I don't see softness in the nose but the sky and darker parts of the fuselage do look a bit grainy. #2 - This looks to me like it might have
176 dlowwa : These all seem like valid rejections.
177 Post contains links and images riflex : Thanks for the help mjgbtv I corrected the first one, the second I'll forget it and the third I'll try again later. For the corrected one: Old version
178 mjgbtv : I don't think your new edit looks grainy. For the other two: G-CGSP does look a bit dark, but I'm not sure about the level. The fence posts do seem to
179 angad84 : Looks like both could use a touch of CW rotation.
180 Post contains links riflex : Hello, Thank you for both answers. I corrected both pictures. I tried to appeal the second one but no-one answered and in the mean while the photo was
181 dlowwa : Level looks over-corrected, and now a little too bright. Yes, both look soft.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Post-Screening(Riflex)
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format